So now instead of getting their news from Facebook, they're getting it from Truth Social? Or some new fly by night social media platform even less reputable?
Surely that's a lot worse?
But that's exactly the problem, right?
Social media platforms, forums and other online social spaces wax and wane on popularity. New ones are turning up all the time. This won't prevent kids from socializing online, it'll just force them to do it in the least safe places. Even if you try to regulate every online social space, it'll just turn into a game of whack a mole.
Is the moral value of an action defined by the action, or by its effect?
"Everything that encourages people to spend money is inflationary!"
Does this fucking moron have any idea how economies work?
Here's a fucking hint; if no one ever buys anything, there is no fucking economy.
Yeah, a two month GST holiday ain't gonna do shit, this is a stupid plan, but calling it "inflationary" just exposes how little this idiot understands about anything. Or how little he cares.
His realisation will go as follows: "Man, this guy is easy to bribe!"
There's a secret co-op mode they never tell you about where you and all the other workers in the company team up and fight your way through together. It's way easier, because the enemy entity count and strength don't increase to scale with the numbers on your side.
Yes to the dolphin, and God knows why you would want anyone else to play Johhny.
You're supposed to feel disoriented. Gibson is trying to capture a sense of a future that is accellerating to the point where humans can no longer exist there as we are.
The terminology is supposed to feel bewildering. Don't sweat it. You'll piece things together through context.
Stick with it. It's the kind of book that is capable of completely rewiring your brain. An absolute masterpiece.
With all that being said, maybe try reading the short story Johnny Mnemonic first? That functions as an introduction to the setting and might be a more approachable way to ease yourself into his style. Fewer characters, a smaller, more compact scenario.
No, there's good reasons to recognize people like Nazis as human.
Despicable, unforgivable, utterly detestable humans. But still humans.
It's an important distinction, because when you say to yourself "Monstrous people aren't human" the unspoken corollary to that is "And I'm human, therefore I cannot be a monstrous person."
Dehumanizing Nazis is how Nazis get away with being Nazis. Because when they're cartoon monsters on TV, everyone recognizes them as Nazis. But when it's someone's cousin or uncle, they figure "I know that guy. Yeah, he's got some shitty opinions, but he's not a monster. He loves his kids. He helps out at the church bake sale. So there's no way he could actually be a Nazi, because only monsters can be Nazis."
It's incredibly important to admit to ourselves that evil can live anywhere. That it can be in anyone. It would be easier to live in a world where we could draw these clean lines between monsters and humans, but reality just isn't like that.
Nazis are human beings, and that is by far the worst and most horrifying thing about them.
Xpipe has become an essential part of my workflow, both professionally and in my homelab. I cannot recommend this software enough.
Ah, sorry, my mistake.
I took you for someone who was at least attempting to argue in good faith.
Supposing all of that were true, it wouldn't matter.
Defending Ukraine against unprovoked foreign aggression would still be the right thing to do. Because a free Ukraine can eventually have a better government. An occupied Ukraine cannot.
Russia isn't starting WW3, because there's literally no possible way for them to survive doing that.
They can't even beat Ukraine in a straight fight, and they know it. They are woefully ill equipped to take on all of NATO.
No matter how much damage they could potentially do if they tried, the ending is guaranteed; Russia and its current leadership do not exist.
The Russian leadership are vain, greedy, and power hungry, and the thing about those traits is they make you very, very averse to personal risk. They're not going to take any action that puts them in the firing line.
Yeah, I've ridden in a few and the build quality issues are noticeable.
They have some features I like, especially the door handles. Those are super cool. And by all means, I want more EV sales in general.
But like, comparing a Tesla to something like a Hyundai Ioniq is just night and day.
It is especially important to understand that Tesla's struggles with navigation are entirely a result of Elon refusing to equip them with LiDAR. This isn't some "The tech is really new and really complicated and we're still figuring it out" problem. There is a very good solution to most collision avoidance scenarios, but Elon refuses to let them use it because he's an idiot.
There's a guy in Hawaii selling "I bought this before I knew Elon was crazy" bumper stickers for $10, and he's already sold over 10,000 this year.
I detest the "all homophobes are secretly gay" thing so much.
What it's saying, in effect, is that queer people are responsible for our own oppression. Because if every homophobe is secretly queer, then no straight person can ever be homophobic. If they were, they wouldn't be straight, by definition.
The only way that argument works is if we're actually arguing that there is no such as being straight, and that everyone is at least 1% bisexual. There's some basis for that, especially in studies of ancient cultures and uncontacted tribes. But until we start taking that seriously as an idea (and that is a very, very contentious idea to be taking seriously), this "Only queer people can be homophobic" nonsense has got to stop.
David and Amy are - openly - skeptics in the subject matters they write about. But it's important to understand that being a skeptic is not inherently the same thing as being unfairly biased against something.
They cite their sources. They backup what they have to say. But they refuse to be charitable about how they approach their subjects, because it is their position that those subjects have not acted in a way that is deserving of charity.
This is a problem with a lot of mainstream journalism. A grocery store CEO will say "It's not our fault, we have to raise prices," and mainstream news outlets will repeat this statement uncritically, with no interrogation, because they are so desperate to avoid any appearance of bias. Donald Trump will say "Immigrants are eating dogs" and news outlets will simply repeat this claim as something he said, with adding "This claim is obviously insane and only an idiot would have made it." Sometimes being overly fair to your subject is being unfair to objective truth.
Of course OpenAI et al are never going to openly admit that they can't substantially improve their models any further. They are professional bullshitters, they didn't suddenly come down with a case of honesty now. But their recent statements, when read with both a critical eye, and an understanding of the limitations of the technology, amount to a tacit admission that all the significant gains have already been made with this particular approach. That's the claim being made in this headline.
So is your autism diagnosed or undiagnosed?
I ask this as an autistic person, because the only charitable way to read what's happening here is that you're clearly struggling with statements that aren't intended to be read completely literally.
The only other way to read it is that you're arguing in bad faith, but I'll assume thats not the case.